The Forest – What Bush-style governing really looks like

There were two more stories yesterday and today about executive overreach by the Bush administration.

The first is about the as-of-yet unknown details of the NSA wiretap program. The Office of the Vice President has acknowledged now that it is holding key documents about the program and is claiming Congress cannot reach into the Vice President’s office for information because any information existing in the VP’s office is privileged.

There are so many of these stories in so many different policy areas that I think it’s sometimes difficult to understand the big picture. These articles are giving us short little descriptions of various parts of Bush’s government but there are very few broad looks at what it all means. In other words, we lose for the forest for the trees.

Here’s my initial stab at the forest:

Separation of powers –

As advocated in the litigation surrounding Cheney’s energy task force, the Bush administration believes that each branch of government (especially if that branch is the Executive) has its own exclusive sphere, with little or no overlap and little or no oversight. Congress cannot enforce its own laws. The Executive Branch has the power to interpret and enforce the laws of Congress as it sees fit, the power to go to war, deploy military resources, and define (and evaluate) its own foreign policy objectives. It also has the power of appointment of the judiciary, which can be done with or without Senate approval (recess appointments).

The role of Government –

The primary objective of the government is not providing government services. It is the extension and maintenance of political power. Appointments are made not with an eye toward efficiency or competence (see FEMA, EPA, Department of Interior, Department of Defense, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, etc.). Appointments are made with two main objectives in mind – loyalty to the political program and political patronage (there is a difference).

Appointments serve to carry out political objectives (see U.S. Attorney scandal) and to insulate the President (see AG Gonzales). They are also made to provide back channels and unofficial information pipelines to key officials in the administration (see the CIA, and also Doug Feith).

Approaching government in this way frees up the administration from actually needing to provide the services they talk about. It only needs to generate enough talking points (whether based on fact or not) to create the impression of services. Which is one of the reasons why arresting and detaining terrorists was done with an eye toward public relations and not the actual trial which would have required a lot more discretion, investigation, resources, and hard work.

This approach is also chiefly responsible for the way we got into the Iraq War. An intel shop was created with a pipeline to Cheney and fed him only the raw intelligence which served to reinforce a pre-existing policy decision.

The role of regulation –

This deserved its own section in my mind, even though it is inherently related to the role of government listed above. Part of why the Bush Administration made the appointments they made in the regulatory agencies was political patronage and loyalty to the political program.

But the role of ideology, related to the above, cannot be ignored. Complete faith in ideology means it is not important to follow up by investigating facts on the ground. The details are irrelevant. Patience and faith will be reward by the inevitability assured by ideological belief. Market forces will correct all errors. God will make sure the good guys win.

So the job of government is to weaken controls, to cut taxes, and to let businesses and the market figure it out. Of course, when ideology conflicts with the Bush Administration political aims, politics wins (see expansion of medicare). Meaning – the President can redefine the ideology to fit his aims.

The President and the People –

The President has the power to order surveillance on anyone, regardless of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or whatever. He has the power to limit the people’s ability to obtain information about his agenda and activities. He can also prevent people from approaching him or addressing him or even listening to him whenever he appears in a public forum.

The President also has the authority to detain an individual indefinitely with little or no explanation, access to the courts, or to family members or an attorney. After the President has detained a person under those conditions and finally gives that person permission to go home, he has the power to silence any dissent or disclosure from that person about the circumstances of his detainment, under penalty of being locked up again.

The President can also torture people.

…

I’m sure there is more to say. But this has all been pretty depressing. Let me just end with this.

Although Bush is a Republican and the Republican party has plenty to answer for in the way this administration has perverted our style of government, this is not representative of the traditional Republican style of governing. Bush is certainly a product of the neo-conservative movement which found a fertile home in the Republican party since the 1960’s. But to say that by virtue of their membership in the party, there are no differences between them and everyone else in the party is simplistic (and perhaps opportunistic) ignorance.

But the Republican party can’t ignore the fact that they provided a happy home for this style of governance. And benefited from its presence.

From the article: “Among other things, any event must be open only to those with tickets tightly controlled by organizers. Those entering must be screened in case they are hiding secret signs. Any anti-Bush demonstrators who manage to get in anyway should be shouted down by “rally squads” stationed in strategic locations. And if that does not work, they should be thrown out.”